Light my fire

Great picture of flame, shame about the mindless word-traffic it generated

In reality it is a closeup of an object. There are many more just like it on Photonet with lots of room to write your opinions and speculate whether it is something more.

If you bought this site I'd be willing to bet your little domain name would be worth nothing in two weeks flat. It says in your bio that you've been a photo.net member for two months, but you feel you should dictate how the site is run? Puuhhhlleeesse. Get a life.

I love the POW, I enjoy all of them, I don't perticularly like all of them but, they all have made a contribution to my photographic intelligence. Unfortunately it seems, several of you allow nothing to influence your intelligence, some of you take two weeks to realize you monitor color is off (nice eye), your portfolios are quite clear on this issue. If you would read what the purpose of POW, as Mary pointed out you would see that POW does exactly what it's supposed to do. Some of you would prefer this forum just be an advertising tool for your portfolios. Go build your own site and than pay photo.net to advertise for you. How you could ever come away from this site not knowing it is an educational site is beyond me. If you need to evaluate photographs based on whether or not it belongs in the Smithsonian than go to the Smithsonian and evaluate away, but leave us people who are trying to use an educational tool to learn alone.

 

LIGHT MY FIRE

I guess I would have to agree that the photo would have more of a statement if it were right cropped to display only 1 remaining unlit match. At first I found it very curious and wondered about what post lightbox alteration had been done. My sense of what I know says that the matches are shorter than any I've seen in a book form and I was initially struck that the only match actually burning was what appeared to be the fourth full match from the right (not sure about the fifth one), which didn't fit my knowledge of burning match books. I did notice that is seemed the matches further left had burned longer, but I couldn't figure out why they were not burning. Finally I realized that they indeed were burning, the visible flame has lifted off the match head as the sulpher was consumed and that I was seeing something I had never seen before even though I have seen burning matches a thousand times before. While I wouldn't hang it on my wall and I don't expect to see it in the Smithsonian, I have been enlightened and that makes the photograph a success to me. Thanks.

You know I didn't want to get involved in this whole discussion. POW's aren't worth looking at anymore. There is no useful critique any more. You have to wade through a whole bunch of crap.

 

Just critique the photo and move on. Don't critique other people's critiques and get into arguments because your tastes differ from someone else's. That's just plain childish. Even if you just don't like what the person said or how they said it. Why should you care? Why litter someone's photo with all the mindless bickering?

 

People seem to use this to get their name out. What's the point of just saying "congrats on the POW" and nothing more? How does that contribute to a discussion of the photograph? It seems that people are just looking for exposure and since this is a popular page every week they use it to get some sort of recognition. You want to congratulate someone then send them an email. You feel you want to do something more send them a blue mountain greeting card.

 

But both sides are just getting out of hand. If you're not mature enough to comment on the photograph don't comment at all. From what I've seen at least the people that say "it's not worthy of POW" at least give reasons for why they don't think so.

 

POW's aren't a place for discussions about POW policies just the photograph.

 

On that note. This photo doesn't do much for me. I think I don't like the matches that were used. I'm not too sure but while it's interesting it doesn't really grab me. I enjoy a lot of this photographer's work though.

 

but for everyone's sake stop commenting on pow's unless you're really critiquing the photo. Stop attacking people's comments. If you want to argue them fine but every week it just quickly goes downhill. It's a shame because there are usually some very thoughtful and provoking critiques that get burried in this crap.

 

To me Postings Of the Whiney seems to fit more than Photo Of the Week. So everybody shut up and play nice or I'm going to turn this car around! :)

 

I've wanted to say this for a while but didn't want to be a part of the problem.

Now that was an interesting critique from Tim VanBlaricom - This is the meat I would think we would be looking for and any hungry photographer might be interested in!! Things that make you go hummmm.. Look at that.. I learned something I hadn't thought of or noticed... A very interesting perspective...yet done with respect and with appreciation for an image very well done. This is the stuff learning is made of. Very interesting commentary on the POW..

Perhaps, if we did this, the author of the photograph would then feel okay about JOINING THE DEBATE and we could all LEARN SOMETHING about how and why they created the picture they did.

I share the spirit of your plea, Brad, but I think you're off base as to why winners of the POW do not bother to come here and engage in dialogue with the membership.

Just look at the membership's participation. It boils down to next to no particpation at all. What does this tell you?

This is what it tells me: it tells me this community is composed of few people who are much different than the mix of personalities found on forums all over the Net. Not that many participate to begin with even when it comes to rating pictures, a simple enough chore, one might suppose; fewer still add comments; the majority of these comments have substantially no value in and of themselves, as you've pointed out. Worse, when other photographers do come here with critical comments they are immediately subjected to personal abuse of one kind or another, a sort of pressure of censorship (by some, not all) with the aim to force them to shut up, this for the reason others do not wish to engage in such conversation--the latter group finds any sort of criticism to be a bad thing by nature and blithely marches through life holding a banner on high with the words boldly stenciled: If you have nothing pleasant to say, say nothing at all!.

Now what makes you suppose the photographers who take these pictures presented as POW will be any different of nature? I say it makes little sense to believe any such thing.

Re lighting:

Both you and Deborah have asked what sort of lighting the photographer used. He used the flare from the match ignitions themselves and nothing else.

For these kinds of shots, assuming the use of ISO 400 film a good rule of thumb might be to start with an exposure of 1 second @ f11. At least that will give you (more or less) proper exposure for candlelights with workable depth of field (assuming use of a wide-angle lens). For the flare of match heads (which I've never shot) it might be that the exposure time will be somewhat less due to the increased light emitted at the instant of flare, but of course that would depend on when the shutter is tripped. I'd then also recommend bracketing if you have the time and (match) material to do so.

To make life easier still, use print film not chromes (as the photographer did in this shot) as then you will be afforded much greater dynamic range with regards to exposure. Also, for purposes of display in .JPG format there will be zero difference in quality between a transparency and negative. Many argue that the former emulsions render superior results when printed on paper. I am not one of those who so argues, for whatever that might be worth, but in any event you're chasing your tail to shoot positive images for display on the Net.

At last, these kinds of shots mean to take advantage of available light. Other light sources would only defeat that purpose.

This is good. The flame looks like a wave of water.

Tris; I dont know how you can make such a bold statement. The yellow light from the flame is predominant but I definitely see some white light reflecting off the waxy front surface of the matches, especially in the lower left corner.

 

And yes, it would be advisable to use a faster shutter speed since phosphorous burns at a temperature of ~ 2500° F while wood burns at ~ 460° F (remembering that film is in essence temperature sensitive).

 

David; 9 comments and 992 words is a boycott?!?

You would be doing us all a favour if you learned the meaning of the word and then put it into practice.

The ONLY reason this site has deteriorated is because of your hooliganism.

I also accredit the absent names to your presence.

I would be willing to pay $65 a year to become a member of this site if they assured me that you werent.

 

This quote by David on Asylum #1 might help us understand where he is coming from.

 

I understand what you mean, Ian, as I have been there, too. It is predators on the staff of such places that creep me out, as well as the bizarre scents and sounds of the patients. That rotten egg scent of Haldol! Forgive my doubting your judgment. The late afternoon on a psyche unit can seem peaceful enough, but once the sun goes down, you know where you are. It can be terrifying, indeed.

 

Taken a bit out of context from a great folder by Ian MacEachern (http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo.tcl?photo_id=402504) and only meant to be humorous.

 

Not sure what you mean about "bold," Kyle. Had I shot this frame it would have been in darkness, and that's about all I can ascertain from the image. If the photographer filled in with an artificial light source then he'd have to give us the details on that. I doubt he did, though.What? You went and counted up each and every word David's written re his idea of a boycott? I admire your work ethic and sense of accuracy . . . but really.

As for David's comment on Asylum #1: what is the implication of your remark, that David's some sort of loony? If so, I'd suggest you rethink your position. I don't know David all that well but from the email correspondence I've had with him he does not come across as nuts. No matter, this is (again) just more ad hominem garbage. It adresses the person instead of an issue or idea, it is presented in an effort to distract readers from the essential merits of the case itself.

All in all it's low-order stuff, Kyle, and from what I've read of you to date I might have expected more. Please try to do better.

As Brian put it "I like POW the way it is, perhaps minus Tris's novella-length comments." Dear fellows would you rather stick around to the topic of POW. There are constant detours from the critique of "Light my fire" photo. It's pretty boring to read about someone's frustration concerning choice of POW, week after week, and again, and again. There is no advantage in reading such things. It would be much better for the whole community to stop discussion what deserves POW and what not, and limit yourself to the photo only. I'm not eager to admire anyone's ability of writing long answers which have nothing to do with the photo itself, I'm fed with it. Tris example show us that it's not worth of making a storm in a glass of water for the quality of monitor or personal taste. Its stupid to admit we were wrong afterwards. Neither can I see advantage in constant critique of the elves for the way they choose POW. Following the common tastes would be a bit destructing. We're all here to learn from the others, not to fight each other as it turned lately, or see photos which fit our tastes only. Coming back to the point. I would like to see answer to my question about exposure from Thomas Wiemer. Tris answer this time is almost OK. But I'd like to get one from Thomas.

David, i see you did not get the point most of us are making regarding your harassing paranoia.

I assume that your condition is so severe that you cannot refrain from making ridiculous comments and spaming this forum with your mediocre comprehension af the real world.

You are making a fool of yourself and you are pathetic.

 

If you will not understand that the only rules we care for here are the ones of decency, here is what i propose (what am i doing`?):

 

1. I am personally willing, for a moderate price of course, to brief you on the differences between freedom of speech, interstate commerce and the laws of the State of Massachusetts; (in some countries, France for example, it is an offence to engage in onerous relations with an irresponsible, but fortunately for me the governing law will not be the French one);

 

2. for an extra modic amount, i am also willing to make you clear the main differences between FBI, NATO, EC and the Red Cross, acronimes you were delirating on last week.

 

3. As a present from me, for free, i will explain you what hate speech is so that you don´t get beaten up if you will repeat your last week discourses in an analogical realm.

 

I remind you that this site is not called www.letssuetheshitoutofpeople.com and if you have any complains on its organisation or on how members behave here then just (i wonder how to say this politely) go away or if you can´t let go then just sue whoever you want and notofy what authorities you want or find some other ways to waste your energy, but for Heavens sake, let this people here do their photography.

 

 

Its stupid to admit we were wrong afterwards.

Surely you don't hold it's stupid to ever admit you're wrong, and so it would be logical to surmise from your above statement that you suppose it's only intelligent to admit you're wrong before the fact.

Pawel, do you ever afford even an ounce of concentration to what you write before you write it?

Thanks, I'll take my answer offline.

Well...I could make a nine post boycott, blither on with some arrogant psuedo-intelectual ramblings...but instead I'll offer a brief critique, since I DO believe that is the intent of posting a photo on photo.net, be it a POW winner or not.

 

Anyway...I do find this image original...and enjoyable, but aesthetically, it's not that strong. I guess I find myself, after the initial curiosity behind such things as how many tries did it take to get this right (perhaps it took a quarter mile of film? :) ), was there any additional lighting or simply the lighting from the flame, and so forth. But...if I had this on my wall, I feel it might "rotate back off" for another image fairly quickly...it's interesting, but only for a while for me. Please take this in the spirit of only being a critique, I applaud the work itself, it's originality and your making the POW, but for me, it's not artistic. For others, it might be.

 

Evan <---Wonders if I'll be "flamed" for daring to comment. Oh well, won't worry about it, just wait for next weeks "POW". :) Oh, and I'm not an elf, even if I have sat around campfires on a friday night and drank. No photos were involved.

 

 

Thomas did indeed a good job at capturing the flamme in motion. however i still find, for all practical purposes, this image to be very static, in spite of the obvious motion. another angle might have given the photo more depth, as well as making it a lot more dynamic. If this is the result of an experiment, the effort of pushing it a little further will not, in my opinion, be a waste of time. i personally would be tempted to add some perspective to it... then, the photograph might also suggest movement instead of flatly "capturing" it.

I think it might suggest movement more if the burned out matches were still smoking and/or the captured moment showed the next match starting to go before the previous match had burned out. It is not quite the decisive moment.

 

I suspect, like others, that it was a setup and that only the one match actually burned during the take. In the picture, there is no visual evidence that the previous match has been burning very recently or that the next match is even going to light. The matches are spaced fairly far apart, so I am not sure these are the type of matches where you would have a chain reaction.

smoke coming of a previous match would most definitly add dynamism... though i'm not sure of the extent to which one can control these elements (now, i almost want to go and try it for myself)... Also, the cropping could be stricter (leave out the half match at the right, or as someone suggested earlier, just leave 1 single unburned match). That (single unburned match) would, i believe, enhance its quality of an imminent and inexorable finality...

A single unburned match would be better; the viewer could synthesize some metaphysical significance out of that, I am sure. Also, as someone else pointed out, the composition would be improved if the flame originated a little to the right compared to the actual photo.

Does anyone have experience trying to capture to moment of ignition for a setup like this? It seems like the burst of magnesium or whatever it is that first catches would be really bright and quick, requiring a short exposure, but could throw everything else into black unless there is some good flash going on.

 

Anyway, the beginning of the next match igniting could also contribute to the feeling of dynamic motion that is being discussed. Just a thought. Did you require air blowing from the right to keep the lit match from igniting the next one?

morwen, can't quite make out from your comment whether you'd be optimistically looking forward a bright future or pessimistically thinking about it going up in flames... yet, your analogy is appropriate -and as far as i'm concerned, appreciated - in either case

a shadow world of ashes, relatively speaking

Very nice photo. Sorry I don't have much to add critique-wise other than what has already been said. Of those, things I agree with would be that it is a bit too static for me, the matches themselves are very intriguing, as is the burn pattern on the already-ignited matches and the patch of flame on the upper left (is that a flicker or flame from the other burning matches that don't appear to be burning or the smoke igniting, or what) (A fun experiment is to light a candle then blow it out and hold a lit match in the smoke. The candle will reignite. I don't know if it is the smoke igniting or the smoke conducting the heat to the wick.) I also agree that different angles or waiting until the flames were further right would maybe add interest and durability. As for symmetry, it appears at first very symmetrical, but the right side is just a bit lower than the left. Nit-picky I know, and not at all important to me, just as an addition to comments on this pictures symmetry.

 

You seem to have the technique and exposure down pat, so some of the suggestions of one match burning or one match left unburnt, etc. would be interesting to see.

 

Comments not directly related to the photo (do not read further if you do not want to read anything not direcftly relating to this picture!)

 

I don't agree with the comments that we should only be talking about the photo itself. There is so much context involved in this whole process of seeing these images on our computer screens that to ignore them would be truly boring. If Tris wants to discuss critiques made by others or discuss his monitor and lighting issues, If David wants to discuss legal issues of this forum, If someone wants to challenge how POW's are chosen, then fine. If I've read the same Digital Vs film or POW selection arguements every week for 10 months, it doesn't make it any less valid to the person who posted it or to a new guest. I don't have a problem with whatever tangential content people want to discuss (as long as there is at least a tangential relationship, I don't want to start seeing recipes), if I don't want to read it, then I don't. I don't consider it pollution to deviate from the photo itself, that happens in real life, why shouldn't it happen here. When people come to me at work, they may talk about all sorts of things unrelated to their work, I don't tell them they can only discuss work with me at work, only that they should do so in a civil manner. If someone is getting unruly and swearing or calling names then I may call them down on it, but otherwise, let the conversation grow on its own and don't prune too much or you may kill the tree.

 

Last week I commented to Tris regarding his approach. It was my opinion that the way he made his point was not appropriate. I never wanted him to stop posting things or to censor him, I just felt that his approach was not all that civil, and it was eating at me so I felt a need to say something. Tris, I hope you don't consider me one of those trying to shut you down or trying to make you say only nice things, because I'm not. Just as you are a strong critic of others who post one-liners and score ridiculously, I felt justified to criticize your critiques. I'm not a censor, just an acknowledged liberal with a bent toward political-correctness.

 

Aloha

It's all been said. 10, 10.

Christian - an experiment. Answer your own lighting query by practising on a candle. Ignore the film iso 400 comment above, your notes say you have a Nikon 995 . Standard iso setting is 100 - stick to that whatever the ambient lighting. Anything higher on that camera will be too noisy. For this your standard lens is fine (38mmX4)

Make a "studio space" in a well-daylit room. Get some black background material (drill, board, etc.) Use a tripod. Set you white balance through preset i.e. putting a piece of bright white board in your target area (where the candle is) and measuring. Try to stay in Macro mode. Shoot through bracketing (exposure sompensation) from -1 to +0.7. For smoke you could burn a stick of incense near the candle and see what happens to it throughout the gamut of settings.

 

Your soft copy efforts will cost nothing but time and a little patience.

 

See what comes of it. You're welcome to mail the pick of the crop to me for a peek, but please keep the file size under 500kb. Hope this helps and good luck.

 

 

 

 

I don't know about anyone else but I don't feel this POW response is lacking in anyway? Some of the best critiques I've seen so far if you can get around all the garbage.

Looks like you're first candidate for a prize David. But I think you're going to far in creative visualisation based on very simple picture. Nonetheless your paralell is pretty good. As I put it earlier that reminds me children play with matches, and my childhood, at first glance. And more probably people would think about dominoes, or something similar to them. If we start to find such "deep" ideas it's going to turn into the poetry and similar udirectly related stuff. Is it all right for the rest of members? Probably yes if it'll be only spice in a meal.